Debate contribution: RAISE Programme: North Belfast
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- RAISE Programme: North Belfast
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937679
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There has been very positive engagement with stakeholders in North Belfast through locality engagement events, focus groups, individual meetings and strategic area plan workshops. There has also been engagement with parents and with children and young people led by Parenting Focus and Stranmillis University College respectively, and their findings will support the development of the north Belfast strategic area plan. The north Belfast locality reference group met on 9 May. The group comprises members from a range of educational settings and voluntary and community organisations and others with a valuable role to play in supporting children's learning in the north Belfast locality. The group is representative of the locality and is open to those with a role in developing the strategic plan for the area. One strategic area plan will be produced for the north Belfast locality that will set out the range of needs of children and young people in RAISE areas in North Belfast and prioritise objectives that will support their educational achievement and aspirations. The north Belfast locality, alongside the other RAISE localities, will submit its draft strategic area plan for assessment and approval by an assessment panel led by my Department. Organisations will then be invited to submit applications for individual projects to deliver against the priorities in the plan.
214 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.33 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.59 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.40 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:23 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.